₦airaland Forum

This your thread would have been very nice if you had posted the points at the beginning instead of trying to create one unnecessary suspense.

I think you should recreate the thread when you are sure of what you want to write. It's FP material, but not like this.

I'm of the opinion that many nasty attitudes in marriage can be noticed while courting if one is observant enough. Most of the time, people just ignore them cos they are too busy being impressed by looks or money or are just desperate to settle down.

Only the guy na street gang? Must be pretty badass.

As if girls take honest guys serious. You want the badass dude with lots of excitement, then you come and cry later that he treated you badly.

It says...
Bandwidth Limit Exceeded
The server is temporarily unable to service your request due to the site owner reaching his/her bandwidth limit. Please try again later.

Operamini for leisure surfing, Chrome for stubborn interactive sites, UC for downloads.

Threaten to block or unfriend me? Dem never born that babe.

Toks2008:
When he told me I asked him several questions and when he told me there was a time he begged to just touch her without love making..my jaw dropped.

I was about telling him to use the touch technique to get her in the mood yet the touch sef nah war.

If I were in his shoes I will have no choice but to have another wife..fact..polygamy is not a sin but not advisable cos of its complication yet it can be the solution to some ugly situations such as this.

na wa. Worse than I thought. I think there's more to it that just an inability to enjoy sex. Couldn't have been remedied cos she kept resisting like someone harbouring a dark secret.

Lol. Another wife under the same roof? A woman who can do that to her husband can do much worse if provoked. Polygamy isn't an option for me.

Toks2008:
This issue of sexual frigidity is a very big one.

Some ladies are hopelessly timid and by this I mean they have practically refused to change...they don't even believe they are timid but rather they will say you are the one asking for too much.

A friend of mine stumbled on his ex wife FB chat with her female friend telling her that she does not like sex for any reason except for procreation. According to my friend, he went through hell with this lady as he will starve himself of sex for days just to make an attempt and be rebuffed again and this has nothing to do with the lady having extra affairs but that is just the way she is.

The guy said she has always been like that but it got even worse..he recommended a libido enhancing drugs for her but she refused and she usually says "is sex food" yet this sexually active guy is so decent that even when advised to have a side chic he bluntly refused yet suffering in silence but he is no longer with the lady tho.

Omo I don't pray to find myself in such situation cos nah serious problem be that.

chai! I pity the guy. A total lack of consideration for the needs of her spouse is a bad trait for any wife (or husband) to have. The day he falls for temptation outside, the wife would start chanting that all men are dogs

Do you think there's anything he could have done to remedy the situation without having to part ways? In his shoes, what would you have done?

LuvU2:
Lol changin the topic would be inevitable since i dont enjoy arguing myself.

hehehe... And you said you can handle them

Lolz Keep it cuming.

LuvU2:
Lol

...True, i was just kidding.
I like well opinionated people in a "passive" way. Dont really argue with them, i just enjoy listening to them. I let them do the talk talk.

which means you'd change the topic if it ever threatens to become more interactive than you'd like. Yes?

LuvU2:
Have i told u ive not been reading

Yea true, average people cannot handle them, but me, i can. I guess that puts me above average

my statement wasn't personal. Don't take it so

Hmmm... Guess it does. We aren't the best judge of ourselves though. So you mean you hardly back off from arguments (not quarrels o)?

LuvU2:
ms know-it-all is a great personality.
Who doesnt want to know everything ? Not me!

a person who does not read does not want to know it all

I think people dislike them because they usually come off as argumentative (can be tiring for the average guy) and at times arrogant when trying to prove a point.

I like the Ms Know-it-all. At times (most times) I want to discuss really deep stuff, no matter how abstract. With that kind of girl, you can discuss anything under the sun

Who hasn't? Even babies have been accused of biting their mothers' nips on purpose while feeding, when all they wanted to do was flex their jaws.

Toks2008:
No sane guy should accept repetitive crazy act even from the sexiest lady in the world but there is a high level of tolerance a man will have towards a lady that is sexually pleasing to his eyes.

It is complicated but holds true.

for some people perhaps. I'd dislike the sexy nagging lady every bit as much as I'd dislike the not-so-sexy nagging lady.

Anyway... It would interest you to know that the majority of sexual dissatisfaction in marriages do not stem from the partner's sexy looks or lack of it, but their attitude towards sex and subsequent actions. So what if your totally sexy partner is frigid?

Toks2008:
You are absolutely right but it is very twisted.

You want a fat lady then you see a slim one with "good character" then you marry her...no matter how hard you try, each time you see a fat lady you will always wish you had one.

When a man marries a lady that is sexually pleasing to him he will be happy with her and will likely tolerate some crazy stuffs from her but if you marry a lady you are not pleased with her looks, if she offends you a little you may over react.

This is a very complicated matter but I will never settle for a lady who is not pleasing to my eyes..in order words..guys should marry their specs to avoid living all their marital life in fantasy.

If I make love to my wife, I don't want to wish she has a better sexual feature...that is bondage.

I understand. I guess we all differ. As for me, I can't overlook a nasty attitude because of looks, and I think sex is overrated. I'd even lose interest in the body.

I only raised an objection because you said sexual compatibility should be the MOST IMPORTANT factor. It's important, but not even top 2 for me.

Hmmm... Why would you marry someone you don't trust?

Bros op, why you dey like to show yourself na?

Zico5:
In this very hard times, someone is still playing with his source of living. I'm sure the man is married if not only greed will make a man force another woman for sex. I pray the lecturer never get out of this mess.

amen! Dem go leave wife for house dey chase their children age mate.

Okikiki:
Let me help you a bit

26. Church..... Coined from "Choo Chi" ... Which means look for God

27. Occupation coined from "Aka Oku" your handiwork.

28. Yoruba coined from "Yoro Uba" meaning scoop your wealth.

29. Land coined from "Ala ndi" meaning there is land

30. Fly coined from.. "Felie" meaning fly up

lol. In programming, that land explanation would cause an infinite recursion.

Land : coined from "Ala ndi" meaning there is... coined from "Ala ndi" meaning there is... coined from "Ala ndi" meaning there is... [repeat till system crashes]

darkenedrebel:
That verse had nothing to do with a woman getting looked down upon because she was still unmarried at a time when she should have already been married. You're misinterpreting a very cut-and-dried message.

Go and read the passage in full—it was talking about sexual immortality, and it was another form of slut-shaming because while the man was precluded from blame, exclusive attention was given to the woman, making it seem as though it was entirely her fault that the man slept with her. You don't need to be Einstein to grasp the subtle undertones.

Isaiah 4:1 isn't about slut-shaming jor. Be humble enough to admit when you do not know something. It's the aftermath of the desolate state in which Zion would find herself. Her men would fall by the sword, and women would be desperate bear a man's name (marriage).

I never said Christ supported the maltreatment of women, I don't know where you got that idea from.

I only cited the story of Christ saving the adulteres as reference point to the gender bias that was prevalent in that time especially when it bordered on sexual immorality i.e when the man is precluded from blame, shame and punishment while the woman felt the full wrath of the law for her adulterous ways (the same crime the man was guilty of)

and Jesus condemned it, so why did you cite it as an example of how THE BIBLE demeans women when Jesus in the account does the opposite?

But the Bible is made up of the old and the new testament —the old testament pretty much being the customs and traditions of the Jews—if you say Judaism has nothing to do with Christians then why would you still quote Deuteronomy 17 to bolster your argument? (Deuteronomy being a Judaic text)

don't play smart. You aren't good at it. I talked about Judaism in reference to your spurious claim about 10 men in the synagogue, and not with respect to the testimony claim for which I quoted Deuteronomy. Everything in the Bible is beneficial because it teaches us vital lessons. The mosaic law is not binding on Christians. They are included anyway because one can discern underlying principles behind the laws. I quoted deuteronomy to debunk your cunning attempt at misquoting that law on testifying to support your stance.

And the 10-men-in-the-synagogue prerequisite can be found in the old testament. Specifically in Leviticus 22:32. It's called the Minyan

Lev 22:32 says:
"Do not profane my holy name, for I must be acknowledged as holy by the Israelites. I am the LORD, who made you holy." (NIV)
Spare yourself the stress looking for proof. It's not in the Bible. There were evidently no synagogues before the days of Ezra and Nehemiah. Seriously, you don't have to be dishonest to win an argument.

My question was as clear as sapphire.

I'm not asking if you believe in the Bible. What I asked was whether you believe the story of Adam and Eve actually happened or if it is just the Judaic variation of the creation story that somehow managed to find its way into the Bible.

if I believe the Bible as true and inspired (which I do), common sense should tell you I'd believe the account in Genesis too. You've succeeded in asking the same thing you said you didn't ask. Penny-wise... For the records, yes I believe it happened.

Childish...

kobosmalls:
Isn't it obvious that the whole point you made is referring to cultural background of the Jews?
Does this mean that the bible is not entirely gods word and so shouldn't be taken seriously?
This meme speaks volume of your religion.

are you asking because you are interested in the answer or because you want to prove a point? I no get time to waste for meaningless argument.

No amount of argument would make a goat and a vulture convince each other that their individual diet is appropriate.

kobosmalls:
Its no longer gods word,its now pauls word.
Awesome.
My point being that the christian god valued men more than women.
After all Genesis said they were created to be helpers.
All these your long write up no make sense.
My argument is clear.
Whether the background or no background your own argument points more to the fact that ur religion was a mere Jewish customs and traditions.
So since you think they don't matter again,you should do the wise thing and throw away the religion.
What Christians are doing today is similar to what homosexuals are doing. Trying to be Christians and demanding to be accepted by the church even though the bible clearly condemns their life style.
You either follow the bible completely or you dump it entirely.
Dont try and select some and leave others, by so doing, you are showing that the source of your belief is not trustworthy.

the Bible isn't just a set of rigid laws and commands for Christians. When you fail to understand that, you would never get the Bible's message. Infact, the commands for Christians are very few. But if you read with an open mind, you'd see that it is full of principles (from Genesis to Revelation) that are neither impractical nor discriminatory. It isn't all laws... It contains descriptions of lives of people and gives us insight into God's view of matters.

No need to get all worked up, sir. You asked questions like you had an open mind, when actually it's locked stiff like a door rusty with disuse. You are not interested in examining answers to your questions because you have a set mind. That's barely different from religious fanatics too, who get upset when someone with a different viewpoint comes along.

Since it makes no difference what anyone says, I shall not bother myself on this issue anymore.

Toks2008:
Well said...but get this straight...if you marry a lady with angelic character but does not appeal to you sexually then be ready to live in fantasy cos you will always wish you have what you want.

I'm not asking anyone to. choose sexual appeal over good character but marry a lady that is not your taste physically because she has wifly qualities and you will understand my stands.

who said one cannot have both? I believe there are ladies that have both traits. Most of the time, we start noticing personality traits after they have satisfied the looks requirements. It's unlikely one would get closer to a lady he doesn't find aesthetically appealing.

However if it ever happens that good looks and a good personality become mutually exclusive, I'd gladly pick the personality. I think one who marries an ugly angel would fare far better than the one attached to a stunning devil.

When you start seriously disliking someone, she starts looking less attractive physically.

Lolz...

"I built this hut" said the Lizard to the Man. "Can't you see that the walls are rough like my skin?"

Marry a woman simply because she's sexually appealing? Seriously? What happens when familiarity creeps in? What happens when you start noticing irritating habits? You think sex would always compensate for that?

Sexual chemistry is important but it is unwise to base a lifetime commitment solely on that one factor.

When people say they prefer the inner person, it doesn't mean they want an ugly person. They just think some things are more important than mere looks; that they wouldn't stop at looks but dig deeper; and so would be more tolerant when it comes to looks than they would towards the presence or absence of certain inner traits.

Who is asking you for explanation? You think the elder sister would be keen to expose her own activities?

darkenedrebel:
@Underlined__how often do you read the bible?

It's inconsequential sir. We'd discuss the Bible, not me.

Isaiah 4:1: "A time would come when seven women would beg a man to allow them bear his name without having to provide their needs so their shame can be taken away"

Apparently, this is just another subtler form of slut-shaming—because according to the prophet Isaiah, a woman who is loose is deemed shameless for turning her body which is supposed to be the temple of God into a bowling alley. But do also you notice the conspicuous absence of the males who did the defiling in his pronouncement? Or did the women have sex with themselves?

bro, these verses had nothing to do with sex or slut-shaming. The book of Isaiah was prophetic, but like most prophecies, terms the listeners would easily understand was often used. In the past, if a woman has reached a certain age and isn't married and no one is coming, or a woman cannot bear children, people look down on them. See an example at Isaiah 54 : 1 - 4. Even in 21st century Nigeria, people still look down on older single ladies. Now it's that shame that is referred to here. It's so much that they would request that a man just let them bear his name. At least they would have a husband. Of course those words are prophetic and the meaning is beyond the scope of this discussion.

-In the new testament, we also read the story of how Jesus saved the adulteress when he asked that the man without sin should be the one to cast the first stone.

Did you stop to ask why it was only the woman who was at the receiving end of the mob? Where was the man she was supposedly caught sleeping with, and why was he let off the hook rather than getting stoned to death with the woman as well?

You got the gist but missed the point. The point is, the society then treated women badly, but Jesus did not share their views and taught his followers to be different. Several times he pointed out certain traditions the Jews has and how they differed from what God wanted. But of course, the Bible contains the good examples and the bad. They both reveal principles that reflect God's personality and his viewpoint on matters. The men were wrong to slut-shame her. Jesus on the other hand, respected women and was not quick to condemn others. Jesus did not support them, and neither do I.

-In the book of Chronicles (I can't recall the exact verse), it was stated that for an accusation in court to be taken as valid, it must require the testimony of one man, or two women, and never one woman—the testimony of one woman was consigned to the dumpers and never to be taken seriously.

em... You aren't correct. Read Deuteronomy 17: 6 where the original law was given. Israelite Judges were forbidden from making decisions based on the testimony of just one witness, male or female. However, two or three witnesses establishes the matter. No mention is made of the gender.

-Also, in the Bible it was stated that at least 10 men must be present in a worship session in the Synagogue before it can be said to be valid. So it didn't matter if there were 100 women present, so long as there weren't up to 10 men in the Synagogue, the worship session was deemed inquorate and unfit to commence.

this is Judaism and has nothing to do with christians. You still have time, quote the part in the Bible that advocates this rule.

If you as a woman do not consider the above to be demeaning then it really says a lot about your self-worth, and the above is just a tip of the iceberg.

Before you lot base your contentions on the contents of the Bible, you should also understand than while the Bible is a cornucopia of wisdom, and by extension, spiritual relief, it was also written by men(mere earthen ware vessels like you and I) who put down on paper the societal conventions that were prevalent during that era.

Most of these societal móres and gender bias which as we know are born of social conditioning dictated the complexion of the so-called rules that were said to have been inspired by God.

Suffice to say that the Bible is a coalition of God's words and the traditions and customs of the Jews which obviously weren't very friendly towards the womenfolk, for lack of a better word.

Answer this question: do you think the Adam and Eve tale is but a Jewish variation of the creation of the world, or that it actually happened and that women are only bearing the brunt of Eve's pratfall?

I am not a woman.

Your question isn't clear, if you are asking if I believe the Bible...Yes I do.

Please rephrase your question if that is not what you meant.

kobosmalls:
The verse I quoted earlier says that they should not speak up but to ask their husbands at home.
Isn't this similar to telling someone that they are not good enough to understand or express themselves unless their husbands explains to them?
1 Timothy 2:11-14 ESV

Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.

If this(for Adam was formed first then eve,Adam was not deceived but the woman was deceived) does not mean psychological weakness to you then I can't help anymore.

again, consider the background. Even before Jesus birth, it was the duty of the leaders in Israel (starting from Moses) to instruct the people about God's laws. Before Israel had their first king, Judges and priests took the lead. These were persons chosen by God. Their leadership had divine backing. They had to take the lead in worship. There were times men not designated tried to preform certain duties that were not delegated to them, and they displeased God. One such person was king Uzziah. Another was Saul. There was also Korah and some others. The bottom line is, God takes leadership in worship seriously and he delegates authority. How does this relate to Paul's message?

Take note that it was the same Paul who wrote both letters. One to the Christians in Corinth and the other to Timothy.

In the letter to the Corinth which you quoted from earlier was a continuation of a set of instructions aimed at ensuring that their meetings were orderly. The issue of subjection was the focus. That can be seen in the letter to Timothy. Paul was against anything that would amount to challenging those taking the lead.

Take note that 1 Tim 2:11 began with "I do not permit..." This was Paul airing his opinion on subjection.

Now, the idea that a woman should be under leadership isn't demeaning. Apart from God, every other creatures is subject to authority. The Bible shows that men are subject to authority too and even Jesus has a head... His God and father. Infact many times he said he doesn't speak of his own initiative but what God told him. That doesn't make him incapable of conscious thought. Submission doesn't mean a woman is mentally and psychologically incapacitated. Someone has to take the lead.

About Adam and Eve... It was simply an allusion to what happened in Eden. As the head of the first family, it was Adam God gave instructions to. Same way many parents would give instructions to their eldest child when leaving the home. It was Adam's duty to tell his wife. It was in that backdrop that Paul made that statement. Back in Eden, it was the woman that got deceived, carried away by her own emotions. The man was not deceived into thinking it was right to eat it. It was willful; he simply did not care.

In a nutshell Paul was strongly endorsing subjection to male headship, not being confrontational or presuming to take the lead in worship.